Abrantes, A. ‘Brasil e o Alvará de 1809: uma ideia fora do lugar?’ Notícias em Patentes, August 3, 2014. http://patentescomentarios.blogspot.com/2014/08/brasil-e-lei-de-patentes-de-1830-uma.html.Google Scholar

Abreu, António. 2021. Innovation Ecosystems: A Sustainability Perspective. Basel: MDPI.Google Scholar

Administrative Conf. of the U.S. (ACUS). 2023. ‘Report on Patent Small Claims’. Retrieved December 6, 2023. www.acus.gov/report/report-patent-small-claims.Google Scholar

Adocker, Thomas. 2011. ‘Österreichischer Oberster Patent- und Markensenat trifft Grundsatzentscheidung zum Verhältnis zwischen der Erfindungshöhe eines Patents und eines Gebrauchsmusters’. GRUR International 60(8/9): 673–676.Google Scholar

Alexander, Isabella. 2020. ‘The Challenges of Intellectual Property Legal History Research’, in Austin, Graeme, Christie, Andrew, Christie, Andrew, and Richardson, Megan, eds., Across Intellectual Property: Essays in Honour of Sam Ricketson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allison, John, Lemley, Mark, and Schwartz, David. 2014. ‘Understanding the Realities of Modern Patent Litigation’. Texas Law Review 92: 1769–1801.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1840. ‘Copyright of Designs’. London Journal of Arts and Sciences 16: 95.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1843a. ‘An Act to Amend the Law Relating to the Copyright of Designs’. London Journal of the Arts, Sciences and Manufactures and Repertory of Patent Inventions 23: 143–147.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1843b. ‘Copyright of Designs: The New Act’. Mechanics’ Magazine 39(1047): 164.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1843c. ‘List of Designs for Articles of Utility Registered under 5 & 6 Vict Cap 65’. Mechanics’ Magazine 39(1051): 254.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1843d. ‘New Copyright of Designs Act’. London Journal of the Arts, Sciences and Manufactures and Repertory of Patent Inventions 23: 228.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1843e. ‘List of Registrations Effected under the Act for Protecting New and Original Designs for Articles of Utility’. London Journal of the Arts, Sciences and Manufactures and Repertory of Patent Inventions 23: 310.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1844. ‘Police’. The Times, November 6 : 8.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1845. ‘Police Courts: Guildhall’. The Morning Advertiser, March 24: 4.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1846a. ‘A Terrible Army’. Daily News, April 27: 7.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1846b. ‘Registration of Designs and the Registrar’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 1(17): 248, 297–299.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1847a. ‘Case of Alleged Infringement of Registered Design’. Mechanics’ Magazine 46(1236): 383.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1847b. ‘Copyright Designs as Distinguished from Patentable Inventions.’ Aris’s Birmingham Gazette. September 6: 3.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1847c. ‘Patents v. Registration’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 2(43): 705.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1847d. ‘The Aldermen and the Registration Act’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 2(47): 772.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1847e. ‘The Degrees of Protection Available to the Inventor under the Patent Laws and Non-Ornamental Designs Act, Relatively Considered’. London Journal of the Arts, Sciences and Manufactures and Repertory of Patent Inventions 30: 367–368.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1848a. ‘Infringement of Registration’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 4(92): 335.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1848b. ‘Reviews’. Jurist (Part II) 11: 275.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1849a. The Builder, 7(338): 359.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1849b. ‘Ventilating Bricks’. The Practical Mechanic’s Journal 2(18): 142.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850a. ‘Cheapening Patents’. The Builder 8(373): 151.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850b. ‘Extension of Copyright in Design – Provisional Registration – Patent Reform’. Journal of Design 4: 103.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850c. ‘Law of Copyright of Designs Amendment Act’. Practical Mechanic’s Journal 3(31): 159.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850d. ‘Patent Agency and Its Professors’ (a letter from a patentee). London Journal of the Arts, Sciences and Manufactures and Repertory of Patent Inventions 36: 321–324.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850e. Morning Chronicle, October 24: 5 (Editorial).Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850f. ‘Patent Law Reform’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 9: 180.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850g. ‘The Registration Act’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 9: 122.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850h. ‘The Registration Acts’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 9: 144–145.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1850i. ‘The Existing Patent Laws, Their Defects and Remedies’. The Engineer and Machinist: A Journal of Mechanical and Manipulative Arts No 1: 2.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1851a. ‘Invasion of the Rights of Inventors’. The Engineer and Machinist: A Journal of Mechanical and Manipulative Art 21: 259.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1851b. ‘Patent Law Reform’. Morning Advertiser, January 8: 3.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1851c. ‘The Prospects of the Bar’. Law Magazine 15: 276–280.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1851d. ‘Review of Spence’. The Practical Mechanics Journal 4(41): 110.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1852. ‘Multum in Parvo’. Norwich Mercury, October 2: 4.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1854. ‘The City of London Corporation Inquiry’. Law Review & Quarterly Journal of British & Foreign Jurisprudence 19(2): 389.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1856. ‘William Clarkson’. Illustrated London News, November 1: 11.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1858a. ‘Insolvent Debtors’. London Gazette, April 20: 1981; April 27: 2091.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1858b. ‘The Patent Law and Patent Office’. Mechanics’ Magazine 68: 486,Google Scholar

Anon, . 1859a. ‘Insolvent Debtors Court, Failure of Messrs Knight and Lacey’. London Courier and Evening Gazette, October 5, 1859: 4.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1859a. ‘Editorial’. Illustrated London News, January 15: 6–7.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1864. ‘Peregrine Bingham Esq.’ Illustrated London News, November 12: 23.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1866. ‘Memoir of William Johnson’. Annual Report of the Institution of Civil Engineers, reprinted in Lancaster Gazette, November 10: 10.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1868. London Gazette, November 13: 5903.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1875. ‘Obituary. Thomas Webster, Q.C., F.R.S.’. Journal of the Society of Arts 23: 665–666.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1884. ‘Copyright of Designs’. Official Journal of the Patent Office 91: 1086.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1891. ‘Designs’. The Illustrated Official Journal (Patents). July 8, 131: 567.Google Scholar

Anon, . 1904. ‘Death of Mr. George Shaw: A Remarkable Career’. Birmingham Daily Mail. August 15: 2.Google Scholar

Arrow, Kenneth. 1962. ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Atal, V. and Bar, T. 2014. ‘Patent Quality and a Two-Tiered Patent System’. Journal of Industrial Economics 62(3): 503–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auerbach, Sascha. 2021. Armed with Swords & Scales: Law, Culture and Local Courtrooms in London, 1860–1913. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balicki, Marcin. 2020a. Sto lat w cieniu patent – ochrona wzorów użytkowych w Polsce, w: Alicja Adamczak, 100 lat ochrony własności przemysłowej w Polsce. Księga jubileuszowa Urzędu Patentowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Balicki, Marcin. 2020b. Wzór już nie-użyteczny? Nowelizacja definicji wzoru użytkowego ustawą z 16.10.2019 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo własności przemysłowej, ZNUJ. PPWI 2020/2/10-24, LEX.Google Scholar

Barbieri, Massimo. August 19, 2017. Utility Models in the Italian Patent System. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3022432 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3022432. Last revised in 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbosa, Denis Borges. 2020. Tratado da Propriedade Intelectual: Patentes. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.Baron, Justus, Arque-Castells, P., Leonard, A., Pohlmann, T., and Sergheraert, E. 2023. Empirical Assessment of Potential Challenges in SEP Licensing, Report Commissioned by the Eur. Comm’n Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, GROW/2021/MVP/0010 (GROW/2021/MVP/0010). Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus, and Pohlmann, Tim. 2018. ‘Mapping Standards to Patents Using Declarations of Standard-Essential Patents’. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27: 504–534.Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland 1977a. ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ in Heath, Stephen (trans. and ed.), Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana.Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland 1977b. ‘The Photographic Message’ in Heath, Stephen (trans. and ed.), Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana.Google Scholar

Bartow, Ann. 2000. ‘Separating Marketing Innovation from Actual Invention: A Proposal for a New, Improved, Lighter, and Better-Tasting Form of Patent Protection’. Journal of Small & Emerging Business Law 4(1): 1–26.Google Scholar

Baumbauer, Derek. 2024. ‘Everything You Want: The Paradox of Customized Intellectual Property Regimes.’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal 39: 205–274.Google Scholar

Baumol, William. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

BBC. 2001. ‘Lawyer Moves to Patent Wheel’, BBC, July 2, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stmGoogle Scholar

Beier, Friedrich-Karl. 1991. ‘The Future of Intellectual Property in Europe. Thoughts on the Development of Patent, Utility Model and Industrial Design Law’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 22(2): 157–177.Google Scholar

Beier, Friedrich-Karl, Krasser, R., Haertel, K., and Bodewig, T.. 1994. ‘Proposal of the Max Planck Institute for a European Utility Model – Explanatory Report’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 25(5): 700–735.Google Scholar

Bellido, Jose, and Bowrey, Kathy. 2022. Adventures in Childhood Intellectual Property, Imagination and the Business of Play. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, and Updegrove, Andrew. 2013. IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standards-Setting Organizations Worldwide. Washington, DC: National Research Council. https://rbekkers.ieis.tue.nl/nas/Bekkers_Updegrove_NAS2013_updated_report.pdfGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, Catalini, C., Martinelli, A., Righi, Cesare, and Simcoe, Tim. 2023. ‘Disclosure Rules and Declared Essential Patents’. Research Policy 52: 104618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, David. 1998. English Criminal Justice in the Nineteenth Century. London: The Hambledon Press.Google Scholar

Bently, Lionel. 2004. ‘Copyright and the Victorian Internet: Telegraphic Property Laws in Colonial Australia’. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 38: 71–176.Google Scholar

Bently, Lionel. 2018. ‘The Design-Copyright Conflict in the United Kingdom: A History’, in Derclaye, E., ed., The Copyright-Designs Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch 6, 171–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bently, Lionel, and Sherman, Brad. 1997. ‘The United Kingdom’s Forgotten Utility Model: The Utility Designs Act 1843’. Intellectual Property Quarterly 25(3): 265–278.Google Scholar

Bian, Renjun. 2018. ‘Patent Litigation in China: Challenging Conventional Wisdom’. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 33(2): 413–486.Google Scholar

Bianchin, S. 2021. Utility Model – The Underestimated Property Right. Intelligent Asset Management, October 21. www.iam-media.com/global-guide/innovation-invention-yearbook/2022/article/utility-model-the-underestimated-property-rightGoogle Scholar

Bielig, A. 2015. ‘Intellectual Property and Economic Development in Germany: Empirical Evidence for 1999–2009’. European Journal of Law and Economics 39: 607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Billing, Sidney, and Prince, Alexander. 1845. The Law and Practice of Patents and Registration of Designs. London: Benning & Co.Google Scholar

Bings, Sophie. 2018. ‘Art. 118 AEUV’, in Streinz, Rudolg, ed., EUV/AEUV. Vertrag über die Europäische Union. Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union. 3rd ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Björkwall, Pia. 2009. Nyttighetsmodeller: Ett ändamålsenligt innovationsskydd? Doctoral dissertation, Svenska handelshögskolan, Helsinki.Google Scholar

Bodenhausen, G. H. C. 1969. Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as revised at Stockholm in 1967. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar

Bonadio, Enrico, and Goold, Patrick, eds. 2023. The Cambridge Handbook of Investment-Driven Intellectual Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bond, Catherine. 2016. Anzac: The Landing, the Legend, the Law. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar

Boschert, Tyler J. 2014. ‘Would Utility Models Improve American Innovation – Evidence from Brazil, Germany, and the United States’. Colorado Technology Law Journal 12: 133.Google Scholar

Bostosun, N. Ayse Odman. 2010. ‘Exploring the Utility of Utility Models for Fostering Innovation’. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 15: 429.Google Scholar

Bottomley, Sean. 2014a. The British Patent System and the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852: From Privilege to Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bottomley, Sean. 2014b. ‘Patenting in England, Scotland and Ireland during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852’. Explorations in Economic History 54: 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bottomley, Sean. 2019. ‘Patents, Invention and Democracy in Britain and the United States to 1852’. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 60(1): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouvier-Ravon, Sandrine, and Hoppe, Daniel. 2024. ‘Injunctive Relief Based on Published European Patent Applications’. European Patent Litigation in Practice 1(1): 5–10.Google Scholar

Bowen, J. H. 1843. ‘Notice Issued by the Registrar: Copyright of Designs for Articles of Utility’. Repertory of Patent Inventions 2: 251.Google Scholar

Bowrey, Kathy, ed. 2021. Feminist Perspectives on Law, Law Schools and Law Reform: Essays in Honour of Professor Jill McKeough. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar

Boztosun, N. Ayse Odman. 2010. ‘Exploring the Utility of Utility Models for Fostering Innovation’. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 15: 429–439.Google Scholar

Brack, Hans-Peter. 2009. ‘Utility Models and Their Comparison with Patents and Implications for the US Intellectual Property Law System’. Boston College Intellectual Property and Technology Forum 2009: 1–15.Google Scholar

Brennan, David, and John, Keough. 2000. ‘Patenting the Wheel’, The Australian Financial Review, December 20.Google Scholar

Brewster, David. 1850. ‘Address to British Association for the Advancement of Science’, in ‘The British Association’, The Scotsman, August 3: 5.Google Scholar

British Electrical Allied Manufacturers Association. 1916. BT 209/486.Google Scholar

British Science Guild. 1928. Report on the Reform of British Patent System. London: British Science Guild.Google Scholar

Burk, Dan L., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2009. The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burke, Kelly, and McClymont, Kate. 2009. ‘This Is Patent Nonsense’, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23. www.smh.com.au/national/this-is-patent-nonsense-20090522-bia2.htmlGoogle Scholar

Bury, Marek. 2022. ‘Protection of Utility Models in Poland: A Brief History and Perspective for the Future’. Law and Business 2(1): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Business Times Singapore. 2001. ‘Achievements Nobel and Otherwise’, Business Times Singapore, October 10.Google Scholar

Cabinent Beau de Lomenie. 2014. ‘The French Patent System’. www.bdl-ip.com/Google Scholar

Cahoy, Daniel R., and Oswald, Lynda J.. 2021. ‘Is Legal Harmonization Always Better? The Counter-Case of Utility Models’. American Business Law Journal 58(3): 525–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Calabrese, Bernardo. 2020. ʻPreminenza del brevetto europeo e autonomia del brevetto italiano’. Giurisprudenza commerciale 2020(3): II, 574–593.Google Scholar

Calabresi, Guido, and Douglas Melamed, A.. 1972. ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’. Harvard Law Review 85(6): 1089–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cameron, J. 2021. ‘Framing Essay: The Diversity of Enterprise’, in Gibson-Graham, and Dombroski, K., eds., The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Campin, Frederick W. 1851. ‘Patent Law Reform’, Morning Advertiser, June 5, p. 2 (letter).Google Scholar

Cao, Siwei. 2015. Patent System, Firm Patenting Strategy and Technology Progress. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Cao, Siwei, Lei, Zhen, and Wright, Brian. 2014. ‘Speed vs. Length of Patent Protection Evidence from Innovations Patented in U.S and China’. https://are.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/job-candidates/pdfs/SiweiCao_WP101214.pdfGoogle Scholar

Carey, Peter. 2003. My Life as a Fake. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Carpmael, William. 1832. The Law of Patents for Inventions, Familiarly Explained. London: G. Wightman.Google Scholar

Carpmael, William. 1846. Registration of Designs in Order to Secure Copyright. 3rd ed. London: Mackintosh.Google Scholar

Caterson, Simon. 2006. Hoax!: A Short History of Fakes, Frauds and Imposters, Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.Google Scholar

Caterson, Simon. 2009. Hoax Nation: Australian Fakes and Frauds from Plato to Norma Khouri. Melbourne: Arcade Publications.Google Scholar

Ceccagnoli, Marco. 2009. ‘Appropriability, Preemption, and Firm Performance’. Strategic Management Journal 30(1): 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, Jinkyu. 2017. ‘Study on the Management of Utility Model System’. The Journal of Intellectual Property 12(4): 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. 1996. ‘Designs and Copyright Committee of CIPA Response’. Journal of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents 25: 897.Google Scholar

Chen,  Ruifang. 1983. ‘The Utility Model System and Its Benefits for China’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 14: 493.Google Scholar

Chen, Yong. 2013. ‘On the Examination of Inventiveness for UMPs’. Intellectual Property 2013(8): 73–76.Google Scholar

Chen, Zhongshan. 2020. ‘Standards for Determining Obstruction of Proof and Malicious Infringement’. The People’s Judicature 2020(8): 84–89.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen V. 2016. ‘Opening the Patent System: Diffusionary Levers in Patent Law’. Southern California Law Review 89(4): 793–862.Google Scholar

Choi, Jisun. 2016. ‘Statistical Analysis and Its Implications on the Relative Rate of Utilization of Influencing Factors for Each Provision of Article 128 of the Patent Act When Calculating the Amount of Damages for Patent Infringement’. Review of Law and Economics 13(2): 248.Google Scholar

Christchurch Press. 2001. ‘Wheel Reinvented’, The Christchurch Press, July 7.Google Scholar

Christie, Andrew, and Moritz, Sarah. 2007. ‘Australia’, in Suthersanen, Uma, Dutfield, Graham, and Chow, Kit Boey, eds., Innovation without Patents: Harnessing the Creative Spirit in a Diverse World. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar, 119–141.Google Scholar

Church, Oliver, Derclaye, Estelle, and Stupfler, Gilles. 2021. ‘Design Litigation in the EU Member States: Are Overlaps with Other Intellectual Property Rights and Unfair Competition Problematic and Are SMEs Benefitting from the EU Design Legal Framework?’ European Law Review 2021(1): 37–60.Google Scholar

Civis. 1845. ‘The Last Registration Decision: Woolley v. Warner & Sons’. Mechanics’ Magazine 42 (1130): 238.Google Scholar

Claeys, Gregory. 2000. ‘Political Economy and Popular Education: Thomas Hodgskin and the London Mechanics Institute’, in Davis, Michael T., ed., Radicalism and Revolution in Britain, 1775–1848. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Clayton, Tony, Dechezleprêtre, Antoine, Dernis, Hélène et al. 2023. OECD Study Enhancing Intellectual Property Use for a Stronger Innovation Ecosystem in Poland, OECD. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/42e389fa-en.pdf?expires=1707515390&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4A38802C1A36771BD2B813A58C4C0EEEGoogle Scholar

CNN. 2001. ‘Man Seeks Square Deal, Patents Wheel’, CNN, July 2, https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/Google Scholar

Cochrane, Nathan. 2001a. ‘Melbourne Man Tries to Patent the Wheel’, The Age, July 2.Google Scholar

Cochrane, Nathan. 2001b. ‘Patently Theatre in the Round’, The Age, October 9.Google Scholar

Cocks, Raymond. 1983. Foundations of the Modern Bar. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Cohen Julie, E., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2001. ‘Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry’. California Law Review 89: 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, Trevor. 2010. EU Intellectual Property Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017a. ‘Aggregated Royalties for Top-Down FRAND Determinations: Revisiting ‘Joint Negotiation’. Antitrust Bulletin 62(4): 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017b. ‘Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents’, in Contreras, J. L., ed., Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust, and Patents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017c. ‘From Private Ordering to Public Law: The Legal Framework Governing Standards-Essential Patents’. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 30: 211.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2018. ‘The Anticommons at Twenty: Concerns for Research Continue’. Science 361: 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2021. ‘Patent Reality Checks: Eliminating Patents on Fake, Impossible and Other Inoperative Inventions’. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 102: 2.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L., Cotter, Thomas J., Jong, S. J. et al. 2019. ‘The Effect of FRAND Commitments on Patent Remedies’, in Biddle, C. B., Contreras, J. L., Love, B. J., and Siebrasse, N. V., eds., Patent Remedies and Complex Products: Toward a Global Consensus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 160–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L., Djavaherian, Dave, Higgins, C., Jurata, J., and Luken, E., eds. 2022. Guide to Patent Policies of Standards Development Organizations. 2nd ed. Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar

Copinger, Walter A. 1870. The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art. London: Stevens & Haynes.Google Scholar

Copinger, Walter A. 1893. The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art: Including that of the Drama, Music, Engraving, Sculpture, Painting, Photography, and Designs. 3rd ed. London: Stevens & Haynes.Google Scholar

Copyright Trolling – skala zjawiska i propozycje rozwiązań, March 10, 2016. https://centrumcyfrowe.pl/czytelnia/copyright-trolling-skala-zjawiska-i-propozycje-rozwiazan/Google Scholar

Cordiner, Tom, et al. 2022. ‘Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents’, CommBar Matters, October 4. https://commbarmatters.com.au/2022/10/04/aristocrat-technologies-australia-pty-ltd-v-commissioner-of-patents/Google Scholar

Cornish, W. R. 1993. ‘The International Relations of Intellectual Property’. Cambridge Law Journal 52(1): 6–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2018. Patent Wars: How Patents Impact Our Daily Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cox, Sarah. 2018. Same-Same but Different: Will the Fate of Second-Tier Patents Be the Same on Both Sides of the Tasman?. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2b414420-b4e8-4ecd-842d-4a42b018d33aGoogle Scholar

Craig, Archibald. 1879. Patents, Trade Marks and Designs. London: The Bazaar Office.Google Scholar

Crary,  Jonathan. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Crooks, Katrina. 2017. ‘Excesses of Innovation Patent Damages Pulled Back’, Mondaq Business Briefing, April 29.Google Scholar

Cummings, Peter A. 2010. ‘From Germany to Australia: Opportunity for a Second Tier Patent System in the United States’. Michigan State Journal of International Law 18(2): 297–322.Google Scholar

Cunninghame, H. 1894. English Patent Practice. London: Clowes.Google Scholar

Daniels, Edward Morton. 1884. A Complete Treatise upon the New Law of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. London: Stevens & Haynes.Google Scholar

Dashwood, Alan, Dougan, Michael, Rodger, Barry, Spaventa, Eleanor, and Wyatt, Derrick. 2011. Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Davis, Jennifer. 1984 ‘A Poor Man’s System of Justice’. Historical Journal 22: 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Derzlm, Natalie M. 1996. ‘Using Intellectual Property Law and Regulatory Processes to Foster the Innovation and Diffusion of Environmental Technologies’. Harvard Environmental Law Review 20: 3.Google Scholar

Dexi, Qiao. 1993. ‘A Survey of Intellectual Property Issues in China-U.S. Trade Negotiations under the Special 301 Provisions’. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 2: 259, 288.Google Scholar

Di Cataldo, Vincenzo. 2012. I brevetti per invenzione e per modello di utilità. I disegni e modelli. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar

Dickens, Charles. 1850. ‘Poor Man’s Tale of a Patent’. Household Words 2: 73–75.Google Scholar

Van Dongen, Lisa. 2023. ‘Proportionality and Flexibilities in Final Injunctive Relief’, in Strowel, Alain et al. eds., The Unitary Patent Package and Unified Patent Court: Problems, Possible Improvements and Alternatives. Milan: Ledizioni, 357–387.Google Scholar

Van Dongen, Lisa. 2024. Flexibilities in European Patent Enforcement: Law, Practice and Aspiration.Google Scholar

Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., and Benoliel, Daniel. 2022. ‘Technological Self-Sufficiency and the Role of Novelty Traps’. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 24: 441.Google Scholar

Du Mont, Jason J., and Janis, Mark D.. 2012. ‘Functionality in Design Protection Systems’. Journal of Intellectual Property Law 19: 261–302.Google Scholar

Du Mont, Jason J., and Janis, Mark D.. 2013. ‘The Origins of American Design Patent Protection’. Indiana Law Journal 88(3): 837–880.Google Scholar

Dutfield, Graham, and Suthersanen, Uma. 2004. ‘The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity’. Intellectual Property Quarterly 4: 379–421.Google Scholar

Dutton, Harold. 1984. The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Edmunds, Lewis. 1890. The Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions. London: Stevens & Haynes.Google Scholar

Edmunds, Lewis. 1895. The Law of Copyright in Designs: Together with the Practice relating to Proceedings in the Courts and in the Patent Office. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Egan, Edward J., and Teece, David J.. 2015. ‘Untangling the Patent Thicket Literature, Tusher Center for the Management of Intellectual Capital Working Paper #7.’Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 2008. ‘Noncompliance, Nonconformist, Nonproblem? Rethinking the Anticommons in Biomedical Research’. Houston Law Review 45: 1059.Google Scholar

van Engelen, D. 2004. Beware the Wolf: Questions about the Dutch Registration Patent System. Patent World, 2003/2004.Google Scholar

Ercoli, Laura. 2023. ‘What’s New in the Law Revising Italy’s Industrial Property Code’. Società Italiana Brevetti, July 26 2023. www.sib.it/en/flash-news/law-revising-italys-industrial-property-code-definitively-approved/Google Scholar

Espacenet. 2024. Patent Documents. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/Google Scholar

Evenson, Robert E., and Westphal, Larry E.. 1995. ‘Technological Change and Technology Strategy’, in Behrman, Jere and Srinivasan, T., eds., Handbook of Development Economics 3a. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeedevhes/3.htmGoogle Scholar

Fachin, Luiz E. 1995. ‘O estatuto civil da clausura real’. Revista de Informação Legislativa 32(128).Google Scholar

Fazzini, Marco. 2019. ‘Sub art. 82 IPC’, in Ubertazzi, Luigi Carlo, ed., Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza. Milano: Wolters Kluwer-CEDAM.Google Scholar

Feng, Xiaoqing. 2009. ‘The Interaction between Enhancing the Capacity for Independent Innovation and Patent Protection: A Perspective on the Third Amendment to the Patent Law of the P.R. China’. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy 9: 1–130.Google Scholar

Flatow, Ira. 2001. ‘Analysis: Ig Nobel Awards for 2001’, Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, NPR, November 23.Google Scholar

Flexnor, Helen Hudson. 2014. The London Mechanics’ Institution: Social and Cultural Foundation, 1823–1830. PhD Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Floridia, Giorgio. 2000. Marchi, invenzioni e modelli. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar

Forrest, Heather Ann. 2004. ‘Utility Model: Widening the Economic Divide between ‘Legacy’ and ‘New’ EU Member State’. International Business Lawyer 32(5): 216–221.Google Scholar

Franceschelli, Maria Luigia, and Trabucco, Giovanni. 2023. ‘Italy: Major Changes to Intellectual Property Code Come into Force’. Hogan Lovells Engage, August 23, 2023. www.engage.hoganlovells.com/knowledgeservices/news/italy-major-changes-to-intellectual-property-code-come-into-force/Google Scholar

Franzosi, Mario. 2008. ʻInvenzione e modello di utilità. La Convenzione di Monaco comporta il rifiuto della distinzione qualitativa’. Rivista di diritto industriale 2008: I, 159.Google Scholar

Frischtak, Claudio R. 1993. ‘Harmonization versus Differentiation in Intellectual Property Right Regimes’, in Wallerstein, Mitchel B., Mogee, Mary E., and Schoen, Robin A., eds., Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Frost, Robert. 1891. A Treatise on the Law and Practice regarding Letters Patent for Inventions. London: Stevens and Haynes.Google Scholar

Fulton, David. 1894. A Practical Treatise on Patents, Trade Marks and Designs. London: Jordan & Sons.Google Scholar

Fulton, David. 1902. The Law and Practice Relating to Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, 2nd ed. London: Jordan & Sons.Google Scholar

Gajewski, Daniel. 2019. ‘Utility Model Examination in China is Quietly Changing’. IPWatchdog. www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/07/28/utility-model-examination-china-quietly-changing/id=111451/Google Scholar

Gallagher, William T., and Halbert, Debora. 2021. ‘Intellectual Property Law and Sociolegal Studies’, in Calboli, Irene and Montagnani, Maria Lilla, eds., Handbook of Intellectual Property Research: Lenses, Methods, and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gama, Sonia Cristina Sequeira, Braga, Edimilson Junqueira, and Rodrigues, Ricardo Carvalho. 2016. ‘A Patente de Modelo de Utilidade como ferramenta de estímulo ao desenvolvimento tecnológico nacional’. Cad. Prospec. 9(4).Google Scholar

Gao, Lulin. 2019. ‘Forty Years of Patent in China’, in Chuntian, Liu, ed., Forty Years of Intellectual Property in China. Intellectual Property Publishing House.Google Scholar

Geiger, Christophe, Nard, Craig Allen, and Seuba, Xavier. 2018. Intellectual Property and the Judiciary. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Germain Maureau. 2023. ‘Double Protection between French and European Patents, What’s New with the UPC’, June 23, 2023. https://germainmaureau.com/en/2023/06/double-protection-between-french-and-european-patents-whats-new-with-the-upc/Google Scholar

Gervais, Daniel. 2008. The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Ghiron, Mario. 1929. Corso di diritto industriale. Roma: Società Editrice del «Foro Italiano».Google Scholar

Gilchrist, Sue, et al. 2022. ‘High Court Gamble Does Not Pay Out for Computer-Implemented Inventions in Australia’, Herbert Smith Freehills, August 24. www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/high-court-gamble-does-not-pay-out-for-computer-implemented-inventions-in-australiaGoogle Scholar

Ginarte, Juan, and Park, Walter. 1997. ‘Determinants of Patent Rights: A Cross-National Study’. Research Policy 26: 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gisclard, T., and Py, E. 2022. ‘France’, in Contreras, J. L. and Husovec, M., eds., Injunctions in Patent Law: Trans-atlantic Dialogues on Flexibility and Tailoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godson,  Richard. 1823. A Practical Treatise on the Law of Patents for Invention and of Copyright. London: J. Butterworth.Google Scholar

Gómez Segade, Jose Antonio. 2008. ‘Utility Models – Lost in Translation’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 39(2): 135–139.Google Scholar

Gooday, Graeme, and Wilf, Steven. 2020. Patent Cultures: Diversity and Harmonization in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grafton, G. F. 1846. ‘To the Editor’. Patent Journal and Inventors’ Magazine 1: 71.Google Scholar

Grau, Eros R. 1990. A Ordem Econômica na Constituição de 1988 (Interpretação e Crítica). São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.Google Scholar

Greco, Paolo, and Vercellone, Paolo. 1968. Le invenzioni e i modelli industriali. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar

Griliches, Z. 1990. ‘Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey’. Journal of Economic Literature 28: 1661–1707.Google Scholar

Grosse Ruse-Khan, Henning. 2012. Utility Model Protection in Pakistan as an Option to Incentivise Minor and Incremental Innovation. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar

Grosse Ruse-Khan, Henning. 2013. ‘The International Legal Framework for the Protection of Utility Models’. The WIPO Journal 4: 175–190.Google Scholar

Grzybowski, Stanisław. 1978. Prawo wynalazcze – pojęcie i systematyka, w: Stefan Grzybowski, Andrzej Koppf, Prawo wynalazcze. Zagadnienia wybrane, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

, G.S. 1850. ‘On Copyright in Design’ by T. Turner’ (review). The Jurist 13 (Part II): 270.Google Scholar

Haans, Richard, Pieters, Constant, and He, Zi-lin. 2016. ‘Thinking about U: Theorizing and Testing U- and Inverted U-Shaped Relationships in Strategy Research’. Strategic Management Journal 37: 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Bronwyn, and Harhoff, Dietmar. 2012. ‘Recent Research on the Economics of Patents’. Annual Review of Economics 4(1): 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Bronwyn, and Helmers, Christian. 2019. ‘The Impact of International Patent Systems: Evidence from Accession to the European Patent Convention’. Research Policy 48(9): 103810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hanly, Conor. 2006. ‘The Decline of Civil Jury Trial in Nineteenth-Century England’. Journal of Legal History 26(3): 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harrison, R. 2023. ‘Patents and Utility Models’, in Wilkof, N., Basheer, S., and Calboli, I., eds., Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hart, Albert Bushnell. 1907. ‘American Ideals of International Relations’. American Journal of International Law 1(3): 624–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hatfield, H. 1912. ‘Utility Model Patents’ (March 23, 1912), BT 209/479.Google Scholar

Hausser, Erich. 1987. ‘Utility Models: The Experience of the Federal Republic of Germany’. Industrial Property 1987: 314.Google Scholar

Hay, Douglas, and Snyder, Francis. 1989. ‘Using the Criminal Law, 1750–1850: Policing, Private Prosecution, and the State’, in Douglas Hay and Francis Snyder, eds., Policing and Prosecution in Britain 1750–1850, Ch. 1.Google Scholar

Heller, Michael A. 1998. ‘The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets’ Harvard Law Review 111: 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heller, Michael A., and Rebecca, Eisenberg. 1998. ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research’. Science 280: 698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2017. ‘The Relationship between Patent and Second Tier Patent Protection: The Case of the Dutch Short-Term Patent System Abolition’. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2958107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2018. Empirical Analyses of European Intellectual Property Rights Institutions. Doctoral Dissertation, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics.Google Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2019. ‘IPR Gender Gaps: A First Look at Utility Model, Design Right and Trademark Filings’. Scientometrics 118(3): 869–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2021. ‘The Demand for IPR Services: To Use or Not to Use a Professional Representative’. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 11(3): 316–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2023a. ‘Key Performance Indicators for Utility Model Systems’. World Patent Information 74: Article 102222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi. 2023b. Yli 30 vuotta suomalaista hyödyllisyysmallijärjestelmää, osa 1. IPRinfo, 5/2023.Google Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi, and Lorenz, Annika. 2018. ‘Need for Speed? Exploring the Relative Importance of Patents and Utility Models among German Firms’. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 27(1): 80–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, J., and Peltoniemi, M.. 2023. ‘The Changing Work of IPR Attorneys: 30 Years of Institutional Transitions’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 197: Article 122853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, J., and Peltoniemi, M.. 2019. ‘Great Expectations: Learning the Boundaries of Design Rights’. Research Policy 48(9): Article 103795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi, and Verba, Michael. 2017. ‘Do Two-Tiered Patent Systems Induce Sorting? Evidence from European Countries’. Paper presented at the EPIP 2017 Conference, September 4–6, 2017, Bordeaux.Google Scholar

Heikkilä, Jussi, and Verba, Michael. 2018. ‘The Role of Utility Models in Patent Filing Strategies: Evidence from European Countries’. Scientometrics 116: 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heng, Genevieve, Husovec, Martin, and Contreras, Jorge L.. 2024. Patentomania: The Cost of Embedding Patents in Social Policies, University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 581 (January 30, 2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hesse, Renata B., and Marshall, Frances. 2017. ‘U.S. Antitrust Aspects of FRAND Disputes’, in Jorge L. Contreras ed., Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust, and Patents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewage, P., and Sampath, N.. 2015. Promoting a Second-Tier Protection Regime for Innovation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in South Asia: The Case of Sri Lanka. MIPLC Studies No. 26. Nomos: Baden Baden.Google Scholar

Heyward, Michael. 1993. The Ern Malley Affair. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar

Hilty, Reto M., and Batista, Pedro Henrique D.. 2023. ‘Potential and Limits of Patent Law to Address Climate Change’. GRUR International 72(9): 821–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hindmarch,  William Mathewson. 1846. A Treatise of the Law Relating to Patent Privileges. London: Stevens.Google Scholar

Hindmarch, , 1851. Observations on the Defects of the Patent Laws of this Country: With Suggestions for the Reform of Them. London: W. M. Benning & Co.Google Scholar

Hodgskin, Thomas. 1859. Letter, ‘The Times and Lord Brougham. Falsehood and Mendicancy’. Morning Advertiser, January 14, p. 3.Google Scholar

Holgersson, Marcus. 2013. ‘Patent Management in Entrepreneurial SMEs: A Literature Review and an Empirical Study of Innovation Appropriation, Patent Propensity, and Motives’. R&D Management 43(1): 21–36.Google Scholar

Holman, Molly A., and Munzer, Stephen R.. 2000. ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Genes and Gene Fragments: A Registration Solution for Expressed Sequence Tags’. Iowa Law Review 83: 735.Google Scholar

Holte, Ryan T., and Sichelman, Ted. 2019. ‘Cycles of Obviousness’. Iowa Law Review 105: 107.Google Scholar

Hughes, Alan, and Mina, Andrea. 2010. ‘The Impact of the Patent System on SMEs’, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper. No. 411.Google Scholar

Husovec, Martin. 2020. ‘The Fundamental Right to Property and the Protection of Investment: How Difficult Is It to Repeal New Intellectual Property Rights?’, in Geiger, Christophe, ed., Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Investment Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 385–405.Google Scholar

Hüttermann, Aloys, and Storz, Ulrich. 2006. ‘Die BGH-Entscheidung “Demonstrationsschrank” – eine Revolution im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz?’ Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 59: 3178–3180.Google Scholar

Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, ‘Save the Innovation Patent Campaign’, December 10, 2018. https://ipta.org.au/news/save-the-innovation-patent-campaign/Google Scholar

IPR Think Tank. 2015. IPR Policy. www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/national-ipr-policy.pdfGoogle Scholar

Isay, Hermann. 1932. ‘Gebrauchsmuster’, in Stringham 1935, Ch. 5, translated from Patentgesetz und Gesetz betreffend den Schutz von Gebrauchsmustern. 6th ed. Berlin: Franz Vahlen.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A., and de Rassenfosse, G. 2017. ‘Patent Citation Data in Social Science Research: Overview and Best Practices’. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(6): 1360–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janis, Mark D. 1999. ‘Second Tier Patent Protection’. Harvard International Law Journal 40: 151–219.Google Scholar

Jannoni Sebastianini, Alfredo. 1936. La tutela delle privative industriali e dei marchi di fabbrica e di commercio. Padova: CEDAM.Google Scholar

Johnson, Matthew, Bialowas, Adam, Nicholson, Peta, Mitra-Kahn, Benjamin, Man, Bradley, and Bakhtiari, Sasan. 2015. The Economic Impact of Innovation Patents. IP Australia Economic Research Paper 05, www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_a_64_side_event_1/wipo_a_64_side_event_1_australia1.pdf.Google Scholar

Johnson, Phillip. 2017, ‘The Report of the Parker Committee on Patent Law 1916’. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 7(2): 156–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jorda, Karl F. 2007. ‘Utility Models: The Panacea for Our Broken Patent System’. Germeshausen Center Newsletter Winter/Spring 2007: 1–3.Google Scholar

Jost, John, Totaro, Gianna, and Tyshing, Christine, eds. 1996. The Demidenko File. Melbourne: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Juma, C. 1989. The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaisi, Avgi. 2014. ‘Finally a Single European Right for the EU? An Analysis of the Substantive Provisions of the European Patent with Unitary Effect’. European Intellectual Property Review 36(3): 170.Google Scholar

Kaneko, Hajime, and Someya, Yoshinobu. 1960. Industrial Property Law.Google Scholar

Kardam, K. S. 2007. Utility Model – A Tool for Economic and Technological Development: A Case Study of Japan. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/finalreport_april2007.pdfGoogle Scholar

Karshtedt, Dmitry. 2015. ‘The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law’. Boston College Law Review 56: 949–1029.Google Scholar

Kasch, Steven P. 1992. ‘The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Past, Present, and Future’. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 7(1): 71–105.Google Scholar

Kay, David Ben. 1985. ‘The Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China in Perspective’. UCLA Law Review 33: 331.Google Scholar

Kellerbauer, Manuel. 2019a. ‘Article 114 TFEU’, in Kellerbauer, Manuel, Klamert, Marcus, and Tomkin, Jonathan, eds., Commentary on the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kellerbauer, Manuel. 2019b. ‘TFEU, Introduction to Part Three: Title VII, Chapter 3’, in Kellerbauer, Manuel, Klamert, Marcus, and Tomkin, Jonathan, eds., Commentary on the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher C. 2015. ‘Rethinking Obviousness’. Wisconsin Law Review 2015: 665.Google Scholar

Kenyon, Andrew, Richardson, Megan, and Ricketson, Sam, eds. 2009. Landmarks in Australian Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kern, Michael. 1994a. ‘Bericht über das Ringberg-Symposium “Europäisches Gebrauchsmusterrecht” des Max-Planck-Instituts vom 7. bis 12.11.1993’. GRUR International: 549–586.Google Scholar

Kern, Michael. 1994b. ‘Towards a European Utility Model Law’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 25(5): 627–647.Google Scholar

Kerr, S., and Kerr, W.. 2018. ‘Global Collaborative Patents’. The Economic Journal 128(612): F235–F272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khan, Daniel-Erasmus. 2015. ‘Article 118 TFEU’, in Geiger, Rudolf, Khan, Daniel-Erasmus, and Kotzur, Markus, eds., European Union Treaties. Treaty on European Union, Treaty on the Function of the European Union. A Commentary. Munich and Oxford: C. H. Beck and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kieff, F. Scott. 2003. ‘The Case for Registering Patents and the Law and Economics of Present Patent-Obtaining Rules’. Boston College Law Review 45(1): 55–124.Google Scholar

Kilpatrick Townsend, . 2022. Utility Models: Economical, Efficient, and Enforceable Patent Protection. www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/utility-models-economical-efficient-and-4367830/Google Scholar

Kim, Yee Kyoung, Lee, Keun, Park, Walter G., and Kineung, Choo. 2012. ‘Appropriate Intellectual Property Protection and Economic Growth in Countries at Different Levels of Development’. Research Policy 41(2): 358–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, Peter. 2006. Crime and Law in England 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knight, Will. 2001. ‘Wheel Patented in Australia’, New Scientist, July 3, www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia/Google Scholar

Königer, Karsten. 2009. ‘Registration Without Examination: The Utility Model – A Useful Model?’, in Waldack und Pyrmont, Wolrad Prinz zu, Adelman, Martin, Brauneis, Robert, Drexl, Josef, and Nack, Ralph, eds., Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Königer, Karsten. 2017. ‘The 125th Anniversary of the German Utility Model: A Reason to Celebrate?’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(2): 75.Google Scholar

Korte, Stefan. 2022. ‘Art. 114 AEUV’, in Calliess, Christian and Ruffert, Matthias, eds., EUV/AEUV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar. 6th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Kraßer, Rudolf. 1995. ‘Developments in Utility Model Law’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 26(6): 950–963.Google Scholar

Kraßer, Rudolf. 2000. ‘Harmonization of Utility Model Law in Europe’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 31(7/8): 797–812.Google Scholar

Kretschmer, Friedrich. 1987. ‘Statutory Changes in German Industrial Property’. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright 18: 767.Google Scholar

Krishnaswamy, K. N., Bala Subrahmanya, M. H., and Mathirajan, M.. 2015. ‘Technological Innovation Induced Growth of Engineering Industry SMEs: Case Studies in Bangalore’. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy 4 ⁽2)^: 217–241^.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

KTM. 1986. ‘Utility model committee’s report’ (original in Finnish: Hyödyllisyysmallitoimikunnan mietintö). KTM Komiteamietintöjä (1986: 48), The Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar

Kumar, Nagesh. 2003. ‘Intellectual Property Rights, Technology and Economic Development: Experiences of Asian Countries’. Economic & Political Weekly 38(3): 209–226.Google Scholar

Ladas, Stephen. 1975. Patents, Trademarks and Related Rights: National and International Protection. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Laisi, H. 2009. 75 vuotta teollisoikeudellista yhdistystoimintaa Suomessa. Oy Nordprint Ab.Google Scholar

LDSOFT. 2022. www.ldsoft.com.br/webseek/Google Scholar

Lee, Keun, and Kim, Yee Kyoung. 2010. ‘IPR and Technological Catch-Up in Korea’, in Odagiri, H., Goto, A., Sunami, A., and Nelson, R., eds., Intellectual Property Rights, Development, and Catch-Up: An International Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, K., Kang, R., and Park, D.. 2019. ‘Diverse Forms of Intellectual Property Rights, Innovations, and Firm Performance at Different Stages of Development: Findings from the Firm-Level Study in the Republic of Korea, 1970s–2010s’, in Background Paper for Asian Development Outlook 2020: What Drives Innovation in Asia?Google Scholar

Lefsin, Jeffrey A., Menell, Peter S., and Taylor, David O.. 2018. ‘Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges’. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 33(2): 551–605.Google Scholar

Legal Daily. 2005. ‘“Questionable Patent” Does Not Equal “Junk Patent”’. Legal Daily, December 28: 006.Google Scholar

Lei, Zhen, Sun, Zhen, and Wright, Brian. 2013. ‘Patent Subsidy and Patent Filing in China’. https://funginstitute.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/patent_subsidy_Zhen.pdf.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2001. ‘Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office’. Northwestern University Law Review 95(4): 1495.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2002. ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations’. California Law Review 90: 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2012. ‘The Myth of the Sole Inventor’. Michigan Law Review 110: 709–760.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., and Simcoe, Timothy. 2019. ‘How Essential Are Standard-Essential Patents?’. Cornell Law Review 104: 607.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., and Sherkow, Jacob S.. 2023. ‘The Antibody Patent Paradox’. Yale Law Journal 132(4): 994–1054.Google Scholar

Li, Wei. 2012. ‘Analysis of Impact of Different Types of Patents on Technological Advancement in China’. African Journal of Business Management 6(10): 3623–3639.Google Scholar

Li, Wenjing, and Manni, Zheng. 2016. ‘Substantive Innovation or Strategic Innovation? The Impact of Macro-Industrial Policy on Micro-Enterprise Innovation’. Economic Research Journal 51(4): 60–73.Google Scholar

Liang, Zhiwen. 2014. ‘Patent Quality Controlled by Judiciary’. The Jurist 144(3): 61–73.Google Scholar

Liberti, L. 2010. ‘Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: An Overview’, in OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2010/01. OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmfq1njzl35-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liesegang, Roland. 1992. ‘German Utility Models after the 1990 Reform Act’. Annual of the Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 20: 1.Google Scholar

Lietzan, Erika. 2019. ‘The “Evergreening” Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship.’ Akron Law Review 53: 805.Google Scholar

Liu, Binqiang. 2014. ‘China Utility Model Patent: Trash or Treasure – A Data-Based Analysis’. IDEA: The IP Law Review 54(2): 225–253.Google Scholar

Liverpool Financial Reform Association. 1851. The Law for the Protection and Encouragement of Invention, (Financial Reform Tract No 22) in The Tracts of the Liverpool Financial Reform Association. London: Standard of Freedom.Google Scholar

Llewellyn,  Margaret. 1996. Utility Models/Second Tier Protection: A Report on the Proposals of the European Commission. London: Intellectual Property Institute.Google Scholar

Llewellyn, , 1997. ‘Is There a Need for a European Utility Model? A View from the United Kingdom’. Annales De La Faculté De Droit d’Istanbul 31(17): 1–26.Google Scholar

Lobban, Michael. 2002. ‘The Strange Life of the English Civil Jury, 1837–1914’, in Cairns, John and McLeod, Grant, eds., ‘The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Long, Cheryl Xiaoning, and Wang, Jun. 2016. ‘Evaluating Patent Promotion Policies in China: Consequences for Patent Quantity and Quality’, in Prud’homme, D an, and Song, Hefa, eds., Economic Impacts of Intellectual Property-Conditioned Government Incentives. Springer, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, Clarissa. 2004. ‘Information Costs in Patent and Copyright’. Virginia Law Review 90: 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loth, Hans-Friedrich. 2001. ‘Vorb’, Gebrauchsmustergesetz. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Lui, Binqiang. 2014. ‘China Utility Model Patent: Trash or Treasure – A Data-Based Analysis’. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review 54(2): 225–254.Google Scholar

Lyne, I., and Madden, A. 2021. ‘Enterprising New Worlds: Social Enterprise and the Value of Repair’, in Gibson-Graham, and Dombroski, K., eds., The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

MacLeod, Christine. 1988. Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacLeod, Roy. 1994. ‘Science for Imperial Efficiency and Social Change: Reflections on the British Science Guild, 1905–36’. Public Understanding of Science 3: 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Madsen, Palle Bo. 2020. Immaterialret. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.Google Scholar

Malavota, Leandro M. 2011. A construção do sistema de patentes no Brasil: um olhar histórico. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.Google Scholar

Manne, Robert, 1996. The Culture of Forgetting: Helen Demidenko and the Holocaust. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Mao, Hao, Zhifeng, Yin, and Jin, Zhang. 2018. ‘Could China’s Innovation Get Rid of the Trap of Utility Model Patent System’. China Industrial Economics 2018(3): 98–115.Google Scholar

Mao, Y., and Thomas, T. (June 23, 2022). Utility Models: Economical, Efficient, and Enforceable Patent Protection. JD Supra. www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/utility-models-economical-efficient-and-4367830/Google Scholar

Marchesoni, Evelina. 2023. ‘The Reform of the Italian IP Code’. Bird & Bird, November 8, 2023 www.twobirds.com/en/patenthub/shared/insights/2023/italy/the-reform-of-the-italian-ip-codeGoogle Scholar

Martínez, C. 2011. ‘Patent Families: When Do Different Definitions Really Matter?’ Scientometrics 86: 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maskus, Keith E., and McDaniel, Christine. 1999. ‘Impacts of the Japanese Patent System on Productivity Growth’. Japan and the World Economy 11: 557–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maskus, Keith, and Penubarti, M.. 1995. ‘How Trade-Related Are Intellectual Property Rights?’ Journal of Internal Economics 39: 227–248.Google Scholar

Mathely, P. 1974. Le droit français des brevets d’invention, JNA.Google Scholar

Max Planck Institute. 1987. ‘Harmonization of Industrial Property and Copyright Law in the European Community. Report of a Symposium held by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright, and Competition Law, at Ringberg Castle near Tegernsee’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 18(3): 303–337.Google Scholar

Max Planck Institute. 1994. ‘Proposal of the Max Planck Institute for a European Utility Model. Explanatory Report’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 25(5): 700–735.Google Scholar

Mboya, R. A. 2018. ‘Utilization of Industrial Designs and Utility Models in Africa: A Case Study of Kenya’. WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers, 2018 Africa Edition.Google Scholar

McDave, K. E., and Hackman-Aidoo, A.. 2021. ‘Africa and SDG 9: Toward a Framework for Development through Intellectual Property’. US-China Law Review 18: 12–29.Google Scholar

McKeough, Jill. 2003. ‘Is Intellectual Property Different, or Are All Unhappy Monopolists Similar?’ University of New South Wales Law Journal 26(1): 289–295.Google Scholar

McKinley, Daniel. 2022. ‘Winner takes all! | Commissioner of Patents Succeeds over Gaming Machine Company and sets new precedent for Patent Eligibility of Computer Implemented Inventions’, Gestalt, www.gestalt.law/insights/winner-takes-all-commissioner-of-patents-succeeds-over-gaming-machine-company-and-sets-new-precedent-for-patent-eligibility-of-computer-implemented-inventionsGoogle Scholar

Meier-Beck, Peter. 2007. ‘Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs zum Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterrecht im Jahr 2006’. GRUR 109(11): 913–920.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. 1988. ‘Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation’. California Law Review 76(4): 803–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merges, Robert P., and Nelson, R.. 1990. ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’. Columbia Law Review 90: 839–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mertzlufft-Paufler, Cornelius, and Matthew, Yip. 2022. ‘Double Patenting in Germany and the UPC’. Maucher Jenkins, April 8, 2022. www.maucherjenkins.com/commentary/double-patenting-germany-upcGoogle Scholar

Mes, Peter. 2013. Kommentar Patentgesetz/Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 5. Aufl., 2020, § 1 GebrMG, Rn. 13; Wenzel GRUR, 140.Google Scholar

Mes, Peter. 2020. Kommentar Patentgesetz/Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 5. Aufl., 2020, § 5 GebrMG, Rn. 6.Google Scholar

Mingardi, Alberto. 2021. Classical Liberalism and the Industrial Working Class. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Minssen, Timo, and Lundqvist, Björn. 2014. ‘The “Opt Out” and “Opt In” Provisions in the Unified Patent Court Agreement – Impact and Strategies for European Patent Portfolios’. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 83(4): 340–357.Google Scholar

Mischlewski, Darryl. 2000. ‘Letter Patent Need for Such Protection’, Australian Financial Review, December 28.Google Scholar

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1984. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1986. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moga, Thomas T. 2012. ‘China’s Utility Model Patent System: Innovation Driver or Deterrent’. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. www.uschamber.com/assets/archived/images/legacy/reports/1211_china_patent_paper.pdfGoogle Scholar

Monotti, Ann. 2010. ‘Innovation Patents: The Concept of a Manner of New Manufacture and Assessment of Innovative Step: Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd’. European Intellectual Property Review 32: 93–97.Google Scholar

Montañá, Miquel. ‘The UPC Is Dead. Long Live the UMC!’ Kluwer Patent Blog, December 11, 2023 https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/12/11/the-upc-is-dead-long-live-the-umc/.Google Scholar

Mott, Kelsey Martin. 1963. ‘The Concept of Small Patent in European Legal Systems and Equivalent Protection under United States Law’. Virginia Law Review 49(2): 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mueller, Florian. 2018. ‘When Defending against Standard-Essential Patents, Beware of Standard-Essential Utility Models’. FOSS Patents. December 7. www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/when-defending-against-standard.%20htmlGoogle Scholar

Mueller, Florian. 2023. Standard-Essential Utility Models Are Major Loophole in Proposed EU SEP Regulation, Presumably Because of Fundamental Rights Issues: Structural Problems. September 9. FOSS Patents. www.foss patents.com/2023/09/standard-essential-utility-models-are.htmlGoogle Scholar

Murdoch, H. H. 1867. Information Respecting British and Foreign Patents and the Registration of Designs. London: published by the author.Google Scholar

Murfitt, Stephen Edward. 2017. The English Patent System and Early Railway Technology 1800–1852. PhD Thesis, University of York.Google Scholar

Musker, David. 2014. ‘Design Crime. Back to the Future or Forward to the Past?’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 9(12): 976–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hus, Nævnenes. 2024. Case Law from the Board of Appeal for Patents and Trademarks. https://apv.naevneneshus.dkGoogle Scholar

National Research Council. 2013. Patent Challenges for Standard-Setting in the Global Economy, Maskus, K. and Merrill, S. A., eds., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Naumann, H. 1958. ‘Utility Model Patent Protection’. Journal of the Patent Office Society 40(11): 800–814.Google Scholar

Nelson, R., and Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Nérisson, Sylvie. 2017. ‘Remaining Scopes for Collective Management of Copyright in the Online World’, in Liu, Kung-Chung and Hilty, Reto M., eds., Remuneration of Copyright Owners: Regulatory Challenges of New Business Models. Berlin: Springer, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neuhaus, Stephan, Por, David, and Ridgway, Mark. ‘What Does the UPC Mean for Patent Litigation?’ Allen & Overy publications, May 31, 2023. www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/what-does-the-upc-mean-for-patent-litigationGoogle Scholar

Newton, Alfred Vincent. 1879. Patent Law and Practice: Showing the Mode of Obtaining and Opposing Grants, Disclaimers, Confirmations, and Extensions of Patents: With a Chapter on Patent Agents. London: Trubner & Co.Google Scholar

Norman, John Paxton. 1851. The Law and Practice of the Copyright, Registration and Provisional Registration of Designs. London: S. Sweet.Google Scholar

North, P. 2021. ‘Independent and Small Businesses: Diversity amongst the 99 Per cent of Business’, in Gibson-Graham, and Dombroski, K., eds., The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Noto La Diega, Guido, et al. 2024. ‘Sustainable Patent Governance of Artificial Intelligence. Recalibrating the European Patent System to Foster Innovation (SDG 9)’, in Rimmer, Matthew, Ncube, Caroline B. and Amani, Bita, eds., Elgar Companion on Intellectual Property and the Sustainable Development Goals. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Odagiri, A. H., Sunami Goto, A., and Nelson, R.. 2010. ‘Introduction’, in Odagiri, H., Goto, A., Sunami, A., and Nelson, R., eds., Intellectual Property Rights, Development, and Catch-Up – An International Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–28.Google Scholar

Ohly, Ansgar. 2021. ‘Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Trade Secrets Cases: The EU Perspective’, in Sandeen, Sharon K., Rademacher, Christoph, and Ohly, Ansgar, eds., Research Handbook on Information Law and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 234–258.Google Scholar

Oldham, James. 1987. ‘Special Juries in England: Nineteenth Century Usage and Reform’. Journal of Legal History 8(2): 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oliveira, Maikon A. B. 2020. ‘Guia para proteção de inovação por obtenção de Carta Patente’. Master Thesis (Universidade Federal do Paraná. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Propriedade Intelectual e Transferência de Tecnologia para Inovação – PROFNIT).Google Scholar

Olson, Bradley J. 2007. ‘The Amendments to the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998: A New Tool for the Boating Industry’. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 38(2): 177–190.Google Scholar

Claudy, Op Den Kamp, and Hunter, Dan, eds. 2019. A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Osgood, Charles. 2001. ‘To Protest New Patent Law, Patent Lawyer John Keogh Was Granted a Patent for a “Circular Transportation Facilitation Device,” A Wheel’, CBC News, July 3.Google Scholar

Osterrieth, Albert. 1912. ‘Discussion of the German Patent Law and Patent Procedure’, in Stringham, ed., 1935, ch 3.Google Scholar

Ożegalska-Trybalska, Justyna. [2021] ‘Commentary to art. 94 IPL’ in Łukasz Żelechowski, ed., Prawo własności przemysłowej.Google Scholar

Østerborg, Lise. 1983. ‘Indledende Bemærkninger til Indførelse af Brugsmodelbeskyttelse i Danmark’. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 1984: 18–24.Google Scholar

Pager, Sean A. 2007. ‘Patents on a Shoestring: Making Patent Protection Work for Developing Countries’. Georgia State University Law Review 23(4): 755–808.Google Scholar

Park, Jong R., and Noe, Sang O.. 2013. ‘Reexamination of the Effectiveness of Utility Model System in Korea’. Law & Policy 19: 201.Google Scholar

Park, Walter. 2008. ‘International Patent Protection: 1960–2005’. Research Policy 37(4): 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patent Law Firm Wittmann. 2024. German Utility Model. www.wh-ip.com/germany/german_utility_model.htmlGoogle Scholar

Pemberton, Gretchen A., and Soni, Mariano, Jr. 1992. ‘Mexico’s 1991 Industrial Property Law’. Cornell International Law Journal 25(1): 103–130.Google Scholar

Picht, Peter Georg, and Karczewski, Anna-Lena. 2022. ‘Germany’, in Contreras, Jorge L., and Husovec, Martin, eds., Injunctions in Patent Law : Trans-atlantic Dialogues on Flexibility and Tailoring. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Picht, Peter, and Contreras, Jorge L.. 2023. ‘Proportionality Defenses in FRAND Cases: a Comparative Assessment of the Revised German Patent Injunction Rules and U.S. Case Law’. GRUR International 72(5): 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pila, Justine. 2022. Seville’s EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polden, Patrick. 1999. A History of the County Court, 1846–1971. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polden, Patrick. 2010. ‘The Legal Profession’, in Anderson, W. Cornish, Cocks, R., Lobban, M., Polden, P., and Smith, K., eds., Oxford History of the Laws of England, Vol XI, English Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno. 2011. ‘The Quality Factor in Patent Systems’. Industrial and Corporate Change 20: 1755–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Progress Press. 2001. ‘Expert Proves Patents Plan Is Wheely Silly’, Progress Press, November 6.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2012. ‘Dulling the Cutting Edge: How Patent-Related Policies and Practices Hamper Innovation in China’. European Union Chamber of Commerce in China. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43299/1/MPRA_paper_43299.pdfGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2014. ‘Creating a “Model” Utility Model Patent System: A Comparative Analysis of the Utility Model Patent Systems in Europe and China’. IP Key Working Paper for China’s State Intellectual Property Office.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2015a. ‘“Soft Spots” in China’s Utility Model Patent System: Perceptions, Assessment and Reform’. European Intellectual Property Review 37: 305–310.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2015b. ‘China’s Shifting Patent Landscape and State-Led Patenting Strategy’. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10: 619–625 (corrected in 2016, 11(4): 315).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2016a. ‘Constructing Utility Model Patent Systems: Lessons from Europe and China’. European Intellectual Property Review 38: 437–444.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2016b. ‘IP-Conditioned Government Incentives in China and the EU: A Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Impacts on Patent Quality’, in Prud’homme, Dan and Song, Hefa, eds., Economic Impacts of Intellectual Property-Conditioned Government Incentives. Springer, 13–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2017a. ‘Utility Model Patent Regime “Strength” and Technological Development: Experiences of China and Other East Asian Latecomers’. China Economic Review 42: 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2017b. ‘Utility Model Patent Regimes and Innovation in China and Beyond’, in Li, Yahong, ed., Patents and Innovation in Mainland China and Hong Kong: Two Systems in One Country Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2019. ‘Re-conceptualizing Intellectual Property Regimes in International Business Research: Foreign-Friendliness Paradoxes Facing MNCs in China’. Journal of World Business 52(4): 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2024. ‘The Impact of IPR Institutions’ Accessibility on Their Usage around the World: A Panel Study’. FIU College of Business Working Paper.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan. 2025. ‘Alternative Responses to Patent Anti-commons: State Financing of Latecomer Patenting’, in Park, Walter, ed., Handbook of Intellectual Property and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan, and Tong, Tony. 2023. ‘Rethinking Firm-Specific Advantages from Intellectual Property Rights: Boundary Conditions for MNEs’. Journal of International Business Studies 2023(1): 91–109Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan, and von Zedtwitz, Max. 2018. ‘The Changing Face of Innovation in China’. MIT Sloan Management Review 59: 24–32.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan, and Zhang, Taolue. 2019. China’s Intellectual Property Regime for Innovation. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prud’homme, Dan, Tong, Tony, and Han, Nianchen. 2021. ‘A Stakeholder-Based View of the Evolution of Intellectual Property Institutions’. Journal of International Business Studies 52: 773–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quinn, Gene. 2015. ‘The Cost of Obtaining a Patent in the US’. IPWatchdog. Retrieved December 3, 2023, https://ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/04/the-cost-of-obtaining-a-patent-in-the-us/id=56485/#.Google Scholar

Radauer, Alfred, Rosemberg, Christina, Cassagneau-Francis, Oliver, and Goddar, Heinz, 2015. Study on the economic impact of the utility model legislation in selected Member States. Final Report, A study tendered by the European Commission – DG Internal Market and Services in 2013, MARKT/2013/065/D2/ST/OP.Google Scholar

Radauer, Alfred, Rosemberg Montes, Christina, Cassagneau-Francis, Oliver, Goddar, Heinz, and Haarmann, C. 2019. ‘The Myth of the “Small Patent for the Small Inventor” – Strategic Motives to Use Second-Tier Patent Systems (Utility Models) in Selected European Countries’. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 14(10): 771–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, Tim. 2001. ‘Giants of the Improbable Claim their Due Reward’, The Guardian, October 5.Google Scholar

Rankine, Andrew. 2022. ‘What the High Court Decision in Aristocrat Means for Patent Owners’, Spruson, September 16, www.spruson.com/patents/what-the-high-court-decision-in-aristocrat-means-for-patent-owners/Google Scholar

de Rassenfosse, G. H. Dernis, D. Guellec, L. Picci, , and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2013. ‘The Worldwide Count of Priority Patents: A New Indicator of Inventive Activity’. Research Policy, 42(3): 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ravillard, Patrick. 2000. ‘The Proposal for a EU Directive on Utility Models’. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy 4: 36-1–36-13.Google Scholar

Reichman, Jerome H. 1994. ‘Legal Hybrids between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms’. Columbia Law Review 94(8): 2432–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichman, Jerome H. 1998. ‘Industrial Designs and Utility Models under the European Communities’ Proposed Initiatives: A Critical Appraisal’. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy 2: 48-1–48-46.Google Scholar

Reichman, Jerome H. 2000. ‘Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repacking Rights in Subpatentable Innovation’. Vanderbilt Law Review 6(6): 1743–1798.Google Scholar

Reichman, Jerome H., and Rutschman, Ana Santos. 2023. ‘The Case for a Liability Rule to Stimulate Investment in Sub-patentable Innovation’, in Chon, Margaret, Dinwoodie, Graeme B., Frankel, Susy, Lauriat, Barbara, and Schovsbo, Jens, eds., Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichman, Jerome H., and Rutschman, Ana Santos. 2024. ‘Protecting Sub-patentable Innovation: The Case for Codified Liability Rules’. UC Davis Law Review 57: 2027–2075.Google Scholar

Richards, John. 2010. ‘Utility Model Protection throughout the World’. https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Utility_Model_protection.pdfGoogle Scholar

Ricketson, Sam. 2015. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ricketson, Sam, and Richardson, Megan. 1998. Intellectual Property: Cases, Materials and Commentary. 2nd ed. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar

Rimmer, Matthew. 2000. ‘The Demidenko Affair: Copyright Law, Plagiarism and Ridicule’. Media and Arts Law Review 5(3): 159–176.Google Scholar

Rimmer, Matthew. 2003. ‘Franklin Barley: Patent Law and Plant Breeders’ Rights’. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 10(4), QUT ePrints: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/85372/.Google Scholar

Rimmer, Matthew. 2017. ‘An Exorbitant Monopoly: The High Court of Australia, Myriad Genetics, and Gene Patents’, in Matthews, Duncan and Zech, Herbert, eds., Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and the Life Sciences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 56–103.Google Scholar

Robertson, Joseph. 1846. ‘Editorial Note to W.E. Staite, “The Law of Patents”’. Mechanics’ Magazine 45: 174–176.Google Scholar

Robinson, W. Keith. 2014. ‘Protecting American Innovators by Combating the Decline of Patents Granted to Small Entities’. St. John’s Law Review 88: 379–432.Google Scholar

Romandini, Roberto. 2011. ʻLa distinzione tra brevetti e modelli di utilità: una diversa interpretazione della disciplina positiva’. Rivista di diritto industriale 2011: I, 200–225.Google Scholar

Roth, Elsebeth, and Svendsen, Niels Holm. 1992. ‘Lov om Brugsmodeller m.v.’ Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 1992B.223.Google Scholar

Ruse-Khan, Henning Grosse. 2012. ‘The International Legal Framework for the Protection of Utility Models’. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper 12(10): n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160229Google Scholar

Ruse-Khan, Henning Grosse. 2015. Utility Model Protection in Pakistan – An Option for Incentivising Incremental Innovation, WIPO-commissioned report, www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung_aktuell/05_utility_model_protection/wipo_study_on_utility_model_protection_in_pakistan.pdfGoogle Scholar

Rutenberg, Isaac, and Makanga, Lilian. 2016. ‘Utility Model Protection in Kenya: The Case for Substantive Examination’. African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC) 1 9: 19–37.Google Scholar

Rutenberg, Isaac, and Mwangi, Jacqueline. 2017. Do Patents and Utility Model Certificates Encourage Innovation in Kenya? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(3): 206–215.Google Scholar

Sadler, Denham. 2019. ‘Government to Abolish Innovation Patents’, InnovationAus.com, September 9, www.innovationaus.com/govt-to-abolish-innovation-patents-2/Google Scholar

Sadler, Denham. 2022. ‘Calls for New Innovation Patents After Old Scheme Abolished’, InnovationAus.Com, May 25, www.innovationaus.com/calls-for-new-innovation-patents-after-old-scheme-abolished/Google Scholar

de Saint-Georges, Matthis, and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno. 2013. ‘A Quality Index for Patent Systems’. Research Policy 42: 704–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sander, Lorena. 2023. Intellectual Property and Innovation: What Can UNDP Learn from the Music World? (Part 1). May 3, www.undp.org/acceleratorlabs/blog/intellectual-property-and-innovation-what-can-undp-learn-music-world-part-1-0Google Scholar

Saw, C. L. 2016. ‘Whither Gene Patenting and the Patenting of Diagnostic Methods Post-Mayo and Myriad: The Need for Certainty in Navigating the High Seas of Policy’. Law Innovation & Technology 8: 207–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scardamaglia, Amanda. 2020. Printed on Stone: The Lithographs of Charles Troedel, Melbourne: Melbourne Books.Google Scholar

Scherer, F. M. 2001. ‘The Innovation Lottery’, in Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer, and First, Harry, eds., Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schmoch, Ulrich. 2008. Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparison: Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/docs/wipo_ipc_technology.pdfGoogle Scholar

Schovsbo, Jens. 2006. ‘Ny Dansk Lov om Brugsmodeller: En Oversigt’ Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 5: 489–493.Google Scholar

Schovsbo, Jens, Riis, Thomas, and Petersen, Clement Salung. 2015. ‘The Unified Patent Court: Pros and Cons of Specialization – Is There a Light at the End of the Tunnel (Vision)?’ International Review of Intellecutal Property and Competition Law 46(3): 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten, and Petersen, Clement Salung. 2024. Immaterialret. Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schwartz, David L. 2012. ‘The Rise of Contingent Fee Representation in Patent Litigation’. Alabama Law Review 64(2): 335.Google Scholar

Scotchmer, S. 1999. ‘Cumulative Innovation in Theory and Practice’. GSPP Working Paper 240, University of Berkeley Working Paper Series.Google Scholar

Scott, Ian. 2001. ‘Honouring the IgNobel’, ABC Science, October 8, www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/10/08/384876.htmGoogle Scholar

Segade, Jose. 2008. ‘Utility Models – Lost in Translation’. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 39(2): 135–139.Google Scholar

Seymore, Sean B. 2021. ‘The Research Patent’. Vanderbilt Law Review 74(1): 143–186.Google Scholar

Shao, K. 2014. ‘The Cores and Contexts of Chinas 21st-Century National Innovation System’, in Shao, K. and Xiaoqing, Feng, eds., Innovation and Intellectual Property in China: Strategies, Contexts and Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2001. ‘Navigating the Patent Thicket’, in Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh, and Stern, Scott, eds., Innovation Policy and Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sharma, Gutam and Kumar, Hemant. 2018. Exploring the Possibility of Utility Model Protection in India. J. Intel. Prop. Rights 23: 119.Google Scholar

Sheikh, Sajid. 2022. Exploring the Possibility of Utility Model Protection in India. Scholars Intl. J. of Law, Crime and Justice. 5: 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherman, Brad, and Bently, Lionel. 1999. The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shoebridge, Grant. 2018. ‘Innovation Patents; Safe for Now’, The Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, April 5, https://ipta.org.au/news/innovation-patents-safe-now/Google Scholar

Singer, J. (2022, December 30). How long does U.S. patent and trademark prosecution take? (2022 edition). J.D. Supra. www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/how-long-does-u-s-patent-and-trademark-8285966/Google Scholar

Singer, Margarete, and Stauder, Dieter. 2003. The European Patent Convention, A Commentary: Volume 1. Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Smith, Harry. 1969. ‘The Resurgent County Court in Victorian Britain’. American Journal of Legal History 13(2): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Societa Italiana Brevetti Intellectual Property Consultants, 2014. ‘Utility Models’. www.sib.it/en/areas-of-practice/inventions/utility-models.htmlGoogle Scholar

Sommer, Tine. 2013. Can Law Make Life (too) Simple? From Gene Patents to the Patenting of Environmentally Sound Technologies. Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag.Google Scholar

Sommer, Tine, Henum, Victor Fasmer, Bording, Nicolaj, Lindgreen, Nicolai, and Schovsbo, Jens. 2023. ‘Den Fælles Patentdomstol – Et Regimeskifte i Europa!’ EU-ret & Menneskeret 30(4): 187–202.Google Scholar

Souza, Allan R. 2006. A Função Social Dos Direitos Autorais: Uma Interpretação Civil-Constitucional dos limites da proteção jurídica. Brasil: 1988–2005. Campos dos Goytacazes: Ed. Faculdade de Direito de Campos.Google Scholar

Souza, Allan R. 2021. ‘Copyright, Human Rights, and the Social Function of Property in Brazil’, in Griffiths, Jonathan, and Mylly, Tuomas, eds., Global Intellectual Property Protection and New Constitutionalism: Hedging Exclusive Rights. Online ed., Oxford: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198863168.003.0013Google Scholar

Spence, William. 1847a. A Treatise on the Principles Relating to the Specification of a Patent for Invention. London: Stevens and Norton.Google Scholar

Spence, William. 1847b. Copyright of Designs, as Distinguished from Patentable Invention. London: Stevens and Norton.Google Scholar

Spence, William. 1851. Patentable Inventions and Scientific Evidence. London: V. & R. Stevens, and G.S. Norton.Google Scholar

Spolidoro, Marco S. 1981. ʻDomanda di brevetto per invenzione e per modello di utilità’. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 1981: I, 1081–1108.Google Scholar

Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., and Criscuolo, C. 2013. Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/03, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar

St Martin, K. 2021. ‘Framing Essay: The Diversity of Property’, in Gibson-Graham, and Dombroski, K., eds., The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Stieper, Malte. 2022. ‘Art. 118 AEUV’, in Grabitz, Eberhard, Hilf, Meinhard, and Nettesheim, Martin, eds., Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Band I. EUV/AEUV. May 2022, 76th EL. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Stierle, Martin. 2019. ‘Der quasi-automatische Unterlassungsanspruch im deutschen Patentrecht’. GRUR 121(8/9): 873–885.Google Scholar

Stierle, Martin, and Hofmann, Franz. 2022. ‘The Latest Amendment to the German Law on Patent Injunctions: The New Statutory Disproportionality Exception and Third-Party Interests’. GRUR International 71(12): 1123–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stringham, Emerson. 1935. Patents and Gebrauchsmuster in International Law. Madison: Pacot Publications.Google Scholar

Summerfield, Mark. 2018. ‘A Brief History of the Australian Innovation Patent’. Patentology, July 10, https://blog.patentology.com.au/2018/07/a-brief-history-of-australian.htmlGoogle Scholar

Sun, Z., and Lei, C. 2023. Strategic Use of the Second-Tier Patent System for Short Life-Cycle Technologies – Evidence from Parallel Filings in China, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4652908CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suominen, Kaisa, Ferara, Nina, de Lange, Peter, and Rudge, Andrew John. 2023. Visser’s Annotated European Patent Convention. Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma. 2001. ‘Incremental Inventions in Europe: A Legal and Economic Appraisal of Second Tier Patents’. Journal of Business Law 2001: 319–343.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma. 2006. ‘Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries’. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma. 2013. ‘Function, Art and Fashion: Do We Need the EU Design Law?’, in Geiger, C., ed., Constructing European Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma. 2019. ‘Utility Models: Do They Really Serve National Innovation Strategies?’, in Drexl, J. and Sanders, A., eds., Innovation Society and Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma, and Dutfield, G. 2007. ‘Utility Models and Other Alternatives to Patents’, in Suthersanen, U., Dutfield, G., and Chow, K. B., eds., Innovation without Patents: Harnessing the Creative Spirit in a Diverse World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suthersanen, Uma, Dutfield, G., and Chow, K. B., eds. 2007. Innovation without Patents: Harnessing the Creative Spirit in a Diverse World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svendsen, Niels Holm. 1993. ‘Lov om Brugsmodeller m.v.’ Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 1993 (2): 237–250.Google Scholar

Swamy, R. N. 2022. Utility Models as a Second –Tier Patent System: Is It Worth Implementing in India? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4091118Google Scholar

Szwaja, Janusz. 1978. Powstanie i ustanie praw wyłącznych, w: Stefan Grzybowski, Andrzej Koppf, Prawo wynalazcze. Zagadnienia wybrane, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

Takenaka, Toshiko. 2021a. ‘Inclusive Patents for Open Innovation’. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 29(2): 187–234.Google Scholar

Takenaka, Toshiko. 2021b. The Role of the New Utility Model System in the Innovation Model of Industry 4.0, Intell. Prop. L. Pol’y Stud. No. 58, 1.Google Scholar

Takenaka, Toshiko. 2021c. ‘Breathing New Life into the German Utility Model System in the Industry 4.0 Era’. GRUR International 121(9): 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Teece, David J. 2017. ‘The “Tragedy of the Anticommons” Fallacy: A Law and Economics Analysis of Patent Thickets and FRAND Licensing’. Berkley Technology Law Journal 32: 1489.Google Scholar

Temple Franks, W. 1912. ‘Patents and Designs Act, 1907’ (October 1, 1912) in BT 209/480.Google Scholar

Tepedino, Gustavo, and Schreiber, Anderson. 2005. ‘A garantia da propriedade no direito brasileiro’. Revista da Faculdade de Direito de Campos 6(6): 101, 111–112.Google Scholar

Terrell, Thomas. 1884. The Law and Practice Regarding Letters Patent for Inventions. London: Henry Sweet.Google Scholar

Theroux, Eugene A. 1980. ‘Technology Sales to China: New Laws and Old Problems’. Journal of International Law and Economics 14(2): 185–252.Google Scholar

Thomȁ, Jȍrge, and Bizer, Kilian. 2013. ‘To Protect or Not to Protect? Modes of Appropriability in the Small Enterprise Sector’. Research Policy 42(1): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timbs, John. 1868. The Yearbook of Facts in Science and Art. London: Lockwood & Co.Google Scholar

Turner, Richard. 2019. ‘Utility Models’. Journal of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents 45(9): 12–15.Google Scholar

Turner, Thomas. 1849. On Copyright in Design in Arts and Manufacture. London: Elsworth.Google Scholar

Turner, Thomas. 1850. Counsel to Inventors of Improvements in the Useful Arts. London: Elsworth.Google Scholar

Turner, Thomas. 1851. The Law of Patents and Registration of Invention and Designs in Manufacture. London: Crockford.Google Scholar

Ubertazzi, Luigi C. 1988. ʻArmonizzazione della normativa in materia di brevetti per modelli e disegni industriali con le disposizioni dell’Accordo dell’Aja del 6 novembre 1925, e successive revisioni, ratificate con l. 24 ottobre 1980, n. 744’. Le Nuove leggi civili commentate 1988(4): 561–583.Google Scholar

du Vall, Michał. 2017. Prawo patentowe. Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Van Zyl Smit, D. 1985. ‘Professional Patent Agents and the Development of the English Patent System’. International Journal of Sociology of Law 13: 79.Google Scholar

Vanzetti, Adriano. 2008. ʻNote sui modelli di utilità e invenzioni’. Rivista di diritto industriale 2008: I, 189–206.Google Scholar

Varadarajan, Rajan. 2009. ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Innovation Pyramid: The Strategic Logic of Incremental Innovations’. Business Horizons 52: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vindicator, . 1835. London Journal of Arts and Sciences 6: 304.Google Scholar

Vossius, Volker, and Hallman, Ulrich Christian. 1985. Industrial Property Laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. 2nd ed. Munich: Wila Verlag für Wirtschaftswerbung Wilhelm Lampl, 129–168.Google Scholar

Wang, Runhua. 2015. ‘A Defense of Utility Models: The Case in China’. Yonsei Journal of International Studies 7: 212–237.Google Scholar

Ward, Cornelius. 1850. ‘The Law of Patents’ (letter). Morning Chronicle October 28, 6.Google Scholar

Webster,  Thomas 1851. The Subject-Matter of Letters Patent for Inventions and Registration of Designs (with Statutes and Cases). 3rd ed. London: Elsworth.Google Scholar

Webster, Thomas. 1852. The New Patent Law: Its History, Objects and Provisions. London: Elsworth.Google Scholar

Webster, Thomas. 1853. On Property in Designs and Inventions in the Arts and Manufactures. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Weinmiller, Jürgen. 1996. ‘Europäisches Weiterbenutzungsrecht statt Europäisierung des Gebrauchsmusterrechts’. Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 87(6): 150–151.Google Scholar

Weitzel, Günter. 1994. Pilotstudie – Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Gebrauchsmusterschutzes in der Europäischen Union.Google Scholar